Arrival (2016)

"When mysterious spacecraft touch down across the globe, an elite team - led by expert linguist Louise Banks - is brought together to investigate. As mankind teeters on the verge of global war, Banks and the team race against time for answers - and to find them, she will take a chance that could threaten her life, and quite possibly humanity."

So, I watched 2 hours or more (trust me, it felt longer) of this utter shite based on a novel about alien octopusses which look like the Cloverfield monster, and I can now safely say that it was boring as shit and didn't make any fucking sense whatsoever.

I'm not some fucking thickie who can't decipher movies, but "The Arrival" is such a fucking artsy-fartsy, tangled mess that there's no explanation possible for what it's supposed to be about without drifting into some obscure philosophical bollocks which nobody normal knows about or has ever read anyway. No moral, no message, none of the most obvious questions answered, nothing memorable, just piss poor storytelling. It doesn't even have Charlie Sheen in it!

Here come loads of spoilers because fuck this movie.

She looks about as happy as I did watching this horseshit.

Basically, some ovaloid spaceships appear all over the world, and the aliens inside look like scary octopusses, or walking hands, or spiders. Take your pick, they are all nasty. The ugly motherfuckers walk like disembodied hands and squirt ink. Whatever the fuck they are, you wouldn't want one swimming up your arse.

A woman linguist (played by Amy Adams) with no make-up (because she's a scientist and clever, yawn!) and a bunch of other nondescript scientists go aboard one of the ships and attempt to communicate with the octopusses, but because the military are involved, someone (predictably) sets a bomb off during one of their missions, and the story starts again, and again, and again. Not like "Groundhog Day", but like someone fucked up editing it all together.

There's a little girl involved and a baby who may be the same person, and both are the linguist's daughter or the linguist herself. Both or all of them are destined to die of some horrible incurable disease which probably came from the octopusses. I'm fucked if I know. By this point, I'd developed a serious case of Forest Whitaker eye (yeah, he's in it too) and didn't care about anything. No action, no ray guns, no boobs, no blood, no cats. Why does something like this even exist? Oh yeah, because nerds and cucks like sci-fi.

After a scene more of less straight out of "The Abyss" (another slow movie which is also boring as shit), the aliens communicate with subtitles then leave. The linguist phones a Chinese scientist guy to tell him what his dead wife's last words were, and we're back to the linguist, and the little girl, and the baby again. Apparently she's married to the Jeremy Renner scientist guy now too, because that isn't predictable at all.

And none of it makes any fucking sense!!!!

Why are they here? Fucked if I know.

8.4 on the IMDb? Give me a fucking break. It's not even worth 1 out of 10. This is complete and utter shit from beginning to end. Allegedly, it rips-off Samuel R. Delany's "Babel 17" too.

I can't wait to see how badly director Denis Villeneuve fucks up the "Blade Runner" sequel with more style over substance now. Actually, I'm not. I won't be watching it.

Blair Witch (2016)

"After discovering a video showing what he believes to be his vanished sister Heather, James and a group of friends head to the forest believed to be inhabited by the Blair Witch."

Starring another load of people you've never heard of and are probably never likely to hear of again, "Blair Witch" is an unnecessary sequel to a faux found footage movie I never liked very much in the first place.

So why watch it? Truth be told, I didn't. I just let my friends tell me how horrible it is, how annoying the characters are, and then I decided to write a nasty blog post about it. Hey, at least I'm honest.

I have no intention of ever wasting my time watching this shit made by Millennials for Millennials, or anything else Wingard and Barrett cobble together. From what I've been told, "Blair Witch" appears to borrow heavily from the Slender Man game and even features a thin-limbed CGI witch-creature to seal the deal. And that's really all I or anyone else needs to know. The rest of it is simply noisy jump scares.

Curious about what the Blair Witch actually looks like? Want to just see the witch and save yourself some money? Here ya go:

Naked Slender Man is actually pretty scary.

Fuck this movie and the original.

If I want motion-sickness from a movie which looks like a camera was being whirled round someone's head in a sock, I'm sure another equally lame "indie horror" offering will appear soon enough.

Terminator Genisys (2015)

"John Connor sends Kyle Reese back in time to protect Sarah Connor, but when he arrives in 1984, nothing is as he expected it to be."

I watched "Terminator Genisys" on Friday afternoon, but I'm writing my critique during the small hours of a Sunday morning and will backdate it to Saturday night. Why? Because time travel, that's why. If any of that confuses you, you probably shouldn't watch this movie, but you can still consider my introductory sentence to be a segue into yet another half-arsed review of a PG-13 Summer sci-fi/action movie which I don't really care about.

Yes, to cut a very long and convoluted story short, "Terminator Genisys" is pretty bad apart from all the 3D gimmicks, big bangs, and explosive action scenes. Fans of "The Terminator" will not be disappointed because, let's face it, if you are a true fan of this genre of craptacular spectacle then nothing anybody says will (or should) prevent you from liking it if you want to. Moviegoers who are used to such subtle things as sympathetic characterisation or a narrative which makes any bloody sense whatsoever should look elsewhere for entertainment.

The nostalgia brigade will undoubtedly be marvelling at the CGI which makes Arnold young again and then be lamenting at how old he looks in reality. The line, "Old but not obsolete!" gets repeated a number of times to make all the infantalised middle-aged men who are watching a movie meant for children feel better about their hero and themselves. I picked up on it too and thought it was sad.

Terminator Genipiss in 3D! That's not gimmicky at all!

On the plus side, the recreation of scenes from previous Terminator movies (particularly the first one) seem spot-on to me without being able to physically compare them side-by-side. Apart from Arnie, the other actors are completely different, but as continuity has never been an important factor in the Terminator series, criticism of this aspect is redundant. "Terminator Genisys" still looks the part and feels like a real Terminator movie, and it's much better action-wise than "Terminator 2: Judgment Day". I'd rather rewatch "Trancers" or "Timecop" than that kiddified shit ever again.

The action scenes and all the clever CGI nonsense in "Terminator Genisys" are actually pretty great, and there's hardly any lag in what really only amounts to a "chase movie" overall. Among the numerous tropes, the "Which one is the real one?" gag also gets played out just to remind those of us of a certain age of how many times "The Six Million Dollar Man", "The Bionic Woman", and even "The Gemini Man" TV shows pulled the same thing back in the day. Lazy writing, clearly, but this is only another typical Summer cash-grab after all. "Iron-Man 3" was much worse, so bite me (to coin a phrase).

It's not worth trying to get your head around how the alternative timeline doesn't match up to anything already known, negates the majority of the other sequels, and won't ever provide an answer to the paradoxes about how and why John Connor can be conceived by a couple who are in the wrong time for him to reach the right age to be a leader in the future war with Cyberdyne or Skynet (or whatever the hell it is), but then again, maybe he's no longer meant to exist. I can't work it out, and I really don't care that much to try to. It's all a load of horseshit anyway.

One ironic quirk is that Matt Smith from "Doctor Who" turns up in a small but important role which made me almost chuckle. I absolutely loathe the "Doctor Who" episodes which he starred in (not only because I'm a David Tennant fan), and in my opinion, none of them make any sense either. It's not Matt Smith's fault but the writers, of course, yet it provides an unfortunate in-joke for those of us in agreement about the matter.

Nerdy computer users waiting for Microsoft's much anticipated Windows 10 on July 29th will also grin at how the Genisys operating system is worked into the storyline, but all I could think of was how "Genesis" is spelled wrong and has nothing to do with the Sega Megadrive. Didn't get the last part? It's a Brit thing, don't worry about it.

Yes, she gets nude again. No, you don't see anything.

Ultimately, the best thing which "Terminator Genisys" has going for it is the chance to see Daenerys Targaryen from "Game of Thrones" as a brunette. Emilia Clarke is a worthy new Sarah Connor in that she's much better than Linda Hamilton but not quite as strong as Lena Headey. Yes, I really liked "The Sarah Connor Chronicles", and I'm still pissed off that it was cancelled.

Emilia's acting abilities aside, she reminds me a lot of Danielle Harris from certain angles but much sexier. She kind of gets nude too, but you don't see anything because this is a PG-13. Boo! Mind you, I'm sure there'll be a porn parody. "Sperminator Genitalpiss" anyone?

But that's quite enough of that. You can watch "Terminator Genisys" in 3D or 2D theatrically if you want, or save your money for the Blu-ray or DVD later in the year. You won't miss anything important by waiting.

"Terminator Genisys" is a polished turd, but it's still a turd like every other theatrical release so far this year. It makes me glad that I'm not reviewing movies anymore.

Poltergeist (2015)

"A family whose suburban home is haunted by evil forces must come together to rescue their youngest daughter after the apparitions take her captive."

Oh God, here we go with the unnecessary remakes again! 'Tis the season! Not that I'm opposed to every remake. Some of them have been better than the originals, particularly in nearly every case of the Asian horror movies which I once collected.

Yeah, some of those remakes are on the Ghost House Pictures label, the same company who are the producers of this movie, so you'd think that they would know what they were doing by now. You'd be wrong, of course. So very wrong.

Look, I'm sure that you know exactly what I'm going to say about "Poltergeist" before I even write it, so let's cut straight through the chase here.

The remake of "Poltergeist" is
complete and utter shite!

Print that on the eventual Blu-ray slipcase!

I don't feel the need to back this up with any reasons. It's already bad enough that I wasted my time and money by watching this soulless piece of crap, and I don't want to torture myself more by writing about it. And no, it has nothing to do with nostalgia.

I've always disliked the original 1982 version because it only has one scene in it which even resembles real poltergeist activity, i.e. the stacking chairs one, and thus even the title of the movie was a bait and switch con job. Fundamentally, the rest of "Poltergeist" is a padded and updated ripoff of the "Little Girl Lost" episode from "The Twilight Zone" TV series anyway.

I can't stand the dope-smoking parents, or the irritating kids, and jump scares don't work on me. On top of that, the smug ghosthunting team and that awful Tangina thing grip my shit. The only two things which I care to remember fondly from the whole ordeal are JoBeth Williams' beautiful shiny legs. That's it.

In my opinion, the original "Poltergeist" is a stupid but fairly harmless, family-friendly Spielberg fantasy in everything but the director's name. I have no idea if Tobe Hooper really directed it or not. I don't care. I simply don't like "Poltergeist". I'm not an American, I don't connect with the suburban situation or the characters, and I have absolutely no nostalgic feelings about it whatsoever. Just waves and waves of bitter disappointment that it isn't actually about poltergeists.

And you know what? I don't like the sequels either.

"Poltergeist II: The Other Side" (1986) seems like an inferior ripoff of John G. Jones' genuinely terrifying "The Amityville Horror Part II" (1982) novel to me, and "Poltergeist III" (1988) is nothing but a badly made final cash grab which isn't worth piss. Back in the day, I only got through that mess of a movie because I didn't want to completely waste the VHS rental fee. It then turned into a waste both of money and part of my life. Fuck that movie too!

As for this "Poltergeist" remake. I've said all that I want to. If you need further validation, I recommend that you read round the other independent reviewers rather than the "big name" sites carrying those enormous "Poltergeist" advertisements. We all feel much the same way. There's probably nothing different on any of the free blogs which I wouldn't have said about "Poltergeist" myself if I even gave two shits about it, but the most condemnation that the shill sites will dare to write is "Well, it's not bad for a remake..." Fuck that noise!

Just watch the IMDb score drop over the weekend as more people find out the truth for themselves. It's only on 5.8 now! The comments on the official Facebook page are hilariously illuminating too. "Poltergeist is bad, it's really bad. It's "A Nightmare on Elm Street" remake bad! It's too modern, truncated, the ending is rushed, the acting/characterisation is horrible, there's no chemistry, no emotion, it isn't scary... Oh, you nearly got me there. No, I'm not doing this anymore. No more negativity!!! I'm outta here!

If you're really that desperate for a "Poltergeist" remake, try "Grave Secrets: The Legacy of Hilltop Drive" (1992) or "Insidious" (2010) instead. I haven't reviewed them either.

Maggie (2015)

"A teenage girl in the Midwest becomes infected by an outbreak of a disease that slowly turns the infected into cannibalistic zombies. During her transformation, her loving father stays by her side."

It's no good, I've bitten my tongue for far too long about the continued decline of so-called "horror" movies. So behold, I'm writing an actual movie review for the first time in nearly two years, even though I honestly don't care about any of it anymore. Unless something as equally dire as this zombie crap comes up later (not including the inevitable remakes and sequels which loom before us), I don't think I'll write another horror movie review this year either. Horror is creatively dead, and there's no point.

I didn't write about the hypocrisy of all the "Twilight" haters who sucked up to "Spring" (2014), even though it's little more than one of those talky "Before" movies with a couple of minutes of monster, nor did I feel obliged to climb back into my online persona like a dog returning to its own vomit to comment on the softcore teen-porno known as "It Follows" (2014). So boring! But I've digressed. I have no beef with any of these people, even if their egos may cause them to manufacture one with me. I don't know any of them personally outside of how annoyingly they act on the internet, and really don't want to. We aren't friends, and we never will be. That's just how the cookie crumbles.

Let's get down to the subject in hand. In the case of "Maggie", it's yet another PG-13 "genre" film with no scares or any horror in it, indicating that the whole concept of "scary" has apparently been abandoned forever now. Just calling a movie "horror" is enough for some people, I guess, whether it bears any resemblence to the dictionary definition or not. Still jaded, I highly doubt that there will ever be a genuinely scary movie again from anyone.

Boasting the same horrible faux-handheld camerawork (with the everso slightly shakiness of such movies as "The Reaping") and a mostly washed-out colour palette, "Maggie" won't make you throw up with motion sickness but will fill you with nausea by utilising such a recognisable "shakycam" contrivance to add "realism". LOL (I never used to use acronyms in my reviews, but I have to this time). Realism in a zombie movie? Give me a break! Why even bother? It's all FICTION, geddit? I hate to break it to you, but zombies aren't real!

To say that everything about "Maggie" is predictable would be an understatement. Aside from the obvious outcome, there's much amusement to be had when Joely Richardson touches her neck to show anxiety JUST LIKE SHE DOES IN EVERY EPISODE OF NIP/TUCK! Get some range Joely, for the love of God! LOL She's still undeniably gorgeous but seems to be no longer capable of doing an American accent or even act anymore. Shame.

Look, I can't act worth a shit either, nor can I bake a cake, but that doesn't mean that I can't spot bad acting or know what I like to eat. For that reason, the less said about Arnie's dozen lines of anguished dialogue and constipated expression throughout, the better. I still like his previous work, I just wish he would actually learn to do some acting one day. I won't deny that there are some attempts at acting here, but it's not very convincing.

I don't really want to write anything about the girl who plays Maggie, but I will. I don't know her name, Abigail Something, and I can't be bothered to look it up on the IMDb either (oh, it's on the poster... Breslin). I think she was nominated for an Oscar once. I don't remember or care. The Oscars are total bollocks anyway. For someone who is supposedly dying, Maggie just behaves like a typical mopey teenager. Oh, so sad! She didn't even register on me, and she's supposed to be the lead! Superficial characterisation or generally bad writing? Who knows? LOL again. I found that I was more interested in how old Arnie looks now, the makeup, locations, and the sets than any of the dramatic performances.

It's true what Wes Vance often said on Deadpit Radio back in the day when I used to listen to it, "If you continuously feed people with a diet of shit, eventually shit doesn't taste so bad to them anymore." In fact, a lot of them now consider shit to be their staple diet and greedily gulp it down willingly.

"Maggie" really is another plateful of steaming turds which the hard of understanding and easily pleased will undoubtedly find very satisfying. The Aristotlean "art is best when hidden" rule is thrown out of the window like a Parisian chamber pot with this movie, and forget about any of this bland crap "causing emotion" or "the catharsis of such emotion". It's tropes, formulas, flat characters, and languid storytelling all the way. OMFG (sorry about another acronym which I would never use in real life), "Maggie" is utter shite!

Slow, boring as fuck, and with a shit ending, the "horror nasties" will undoutedly ADORE and LOVE "Maggie" (since it's impossible for any of them to merely LIKE a film with their affected and constantly gushing written style). They all write the same way and repeat each other ad nauseum. I bet they are all SUPER EXCITED about this too. Bahahahahaha! Fucking tools! I bet none of them will have the balls to admit that even "Contracted" (2013) has better effects and more emotion to it than "Maggie".

I would say that I can't wait to read their reviews to see my predictions proven right, but I'm not that interested enough to do so. Let's face it, you know that the "big names" (in reality, nothing but unemployable ex-students who write purple prose for less than a penny a word) and their asscrawlers will be praising the shit out of this because it gets them page views, reciprocal promotion, a quote on the DVD cover, and access. There's very little honesty among them, and there never has been. "It's all marketing" is their hackneyed excuse. Whatever. They are nothing but gaslighters and clickbait. Let them eat zombie cupcakes!

"Maggie" is vacuous rubbish of the highest order which is presumably aimed at younger teenagers who aren't allowed to watch "The Walking Dead" on TV. Entertainment-wise, this isn't for "horror buffs", traditional Arnie fans, or for anyone expecting lots of action. It's not even badly done enough to laugh at in a sneering way like so many scathing reviewers love to do.

Supposedly a character driven piece and an allegory about terminal illness, the dialogue is so lame and the execution so ploddingly dull that "Maggie" fails to deliver the goods there too. With or without the zombie gimmick, "Maggie" is simply null and void on all emotional levels.

For something more invigorating, I suggest that you go old school and watch some vintage Romero or Italian zombie movies instead. Vote with your wallets and give this one a miss unless you've exhausted everything else to watch.

The Lazarus Effect (2015)

"A group of medical students discover a way to bring dead patients back to life."

Remember "Flatliners" (1990)? How about "Pet Sematary" (1989)? Yes, of course, you do. So does everyone else, especially Blumhouse Productions. Thus, it comes as no surprise that "The Lazarus Effect" is a quick and dirty remix of the two fondly remembered "millennial generation" movies from the poorer first-half of the 1990s, and seems to be another product designed to grab some easy money by using nothing but predictable formulas and tropes.

Yes, all horror movies are mainly repeated formulas, clichés, and tropes anyway, but Blumhouse have been working on getting this down to a fine art for some time. You have to give them credit for studying the genre and at least trying to create the "perfect" formulaic horror movie, although they do still seem to fail at it more often than not. The better movies which they homage are too recognisable and way too fresh in the minds of the target audience, and that makes these Blumhouse products fairly redundant.

In this case, "The Lazarus Effect" is yet another in a long line of Frankenstein-genre (or "science run amok") movies where Man plays God and things go very wrong. A little bit of pseudo-scientific babble and the old "science versus religion" chestnut get another outing to create depth, but nobody really cares one way or another as long as there are some gimmicky special effects to look at.

Adding Evan Peters who is currently in vogue by being eyecandy for teenage girls in "American Horror Story", and American TV staple Olivia Wilde (who I really only recognise from her movie roles in "Turistas", "In Time", and for wearing a very sexy costume in the horrible "TRON: Legacy"), is another stroke of Blumhouse genius to attract these actors' fanbases to this movie. Knowing how easily pleased some people are, I'm sure that it works too.

For what it is, "The Lazarus Effect" is an okay watch with very good production values, effects, and above average acting. However, despite an effective set-up, the narrative is a bit thin overall, and it obviously plays out like at least two stories mashed together badly because it is.

"The Lazarus Effect" is hardly the worst sci-fi/horror ever, since it does entertain and delivers exactly what it was created to do, so it's hard to find fault there. It even has a decent atmosphere and a couple of attempts at jump scares, but due to being PG-13, it's just not very scary or destined to be memorable.

I don't recommend it.

Carrie (2013)

"A reimagining of the classic horror tale about Carrie White, a shy girl outcast by her peers and sheltered by her deeply religious mother, who unleashes telekinetic terror on her small town after being pushed too far at her senior prom."

What can I possibly write about this remake that hasn't been said before about every remake which doesn't match up to the original? If you avoid the notorious shill reviewers, you can pretty much pick any negative review of "Carrie" (trust me, 99% of them are very negative!) and they will all say exactly the same things as I want to: This remake of "Carrie" is a soulless and generic cashgrab.

If you've done the same thing as me and rewatched Brian De Palma's 1976 version recently, comparing the two movies is a bit like explaining the difference between Coke and Pepsi to other fizzy cola drinkers. Both use the same source material, but the American classic is bolder and more effervescent than the flatter and milder newcomer. The allusion is a good one, but it has to end there because some would argue that it's about taste rather than universals and discernment. If you don't know what those are, it's time for you to go back to Aristotle and re-aquaint yourself with basic aesthetic criticism. Some dramatic elements can be qualified, others not so easily, but at the end of the day, it's all about how the combination of elements evokes emotion and the catharis of emotion.

Before I begin my dissection, let me remind you that I'm not a nostalgist. I am just as willing to accept a new movie as I am an older one as long as it's good. I'm certainly not going to buy into the bullshit about a remake being better and more suitable for the younger generation than the original unless there's been an improvement. Sadly, the new version of "Carrie" adds a couple of extra scenes, removes a few others, and doesn't improve on anything.

"Plug it up! Plug it up!"

The first problem with the new "Carrie" is the age of the actors. In Brian De Palma's version, everyone was older playing younger. Sissy Spacek (the original Carrie White) was 27 years old at the time, not 16 like Chloë Grace Moretz. I'm not sure who the youngest cast member was in the original, but it's probably a toss up between John Travolta and Michael Talbott who were both in their early 20s. Consequently, they had a certain physicality, presence, and expressiveness about them which these younger pudgy-faced actors don't.

I know that if you use Nancy Allen as an example, things tend to not match the pattern, but despite only having two screen credits to her name before "Carrie", Nancy Allen (a 26-year-old) playing the bitchy but sexy Chris Hargensen was from a different world and fleshed out her character with natural charisma. Her replacement, Portia Doubleday, even though she's 25, is not only plainer but would be completely miscast if she tried to pull off the same role. Substantial changes to the character have made Chris Hargensen more cowardly, deceitful, and unlikeable, but turning her into little more than a stereotypically bully is at the expense of what made Nancy Allen's performance outstanding.

The same is true of every re-imagined character in this remake. The characters in the 1976 version simply have more depth to them which comes from who is playing them more than what they do or what comes out of their mouths. The originals have a look, an attitude, and vitality which the newcomers don't. The casting choices for this remake are okay-ish, but there's no star potential here. The cookie-cutter actors and actresses are as bland as the ones from the "trendy teen" slashers of the '90.

"Eve was weak! Eve was weak!"

Chloë Grace Moretz is a tiny, pretty girl, but she's not convincing as Carrie White. Her portrayal has no change from ugly ducking into a swan like Sissy Spacek's, and she only turns a pretty girl into a vengeful witch who can make CGI things float in mid-air and Hulk-stomp cracks into the road. The new Carrie doesn't sparkle with delight at the prom or make you want to fall in love with her when she smiles. Sissy Spacek nailed that role, and Chloë Grace Moretz is like a reject from "Charmed" in comparison.

Carrie's relationship with her mother is much the same as in the original, and Julianne Moore is occasionally better as a religious nutjob than Piper Laurie, but they don't resemble each other physically. Perhaps that's why a birthing scene was added to stop any speculation about whether the new Carrie might be adopted because, lamentably, there really are people who haven't seen other "Carrie" movies or read Stephen King's novel. As I'm not in that category, all I noticed was that Julianne Moore has the freckliness about her which would have made her a good match for Sissy Spacek, but if you tried to do the same thing with Chloë Grace Moretz and Piper Laurie, the mismatch would be more ludicrous.

The scenes between Chloë Grace Moretz and Julianne Moore are the best in the movie, give or take some stupid CGI levitations which aren't as good as the more realistic effects from the original, but they still feel like parody re-enactments when compared to the powerful and iconic performances by Sissy Spacek and Piper Laurie. Judged on their own merits, they work.

The next problem is the pacing. Everything seems to be much faster, although if you time it, the acts are almost the same length. So what went wrong? The most obvious answer is the additional scenes of Carrie's birth and the posting of a YouTube video of Carrie being bullied in the shower. Neither of these scenes add anything to the story, and the latter isn't made as much of as it could be in light of recent media attention about bullying cases involving the internet. It's a contemporary update which some kids can relate to, but Carrie doesn't know about it or have any reaction to it, so what's the point? Adding these superfluous scenes just shortens the time which should have been used on better characterisation.

"They're all gonna laugh at you."

For something which is mostly a scene-by-scene remake in other respects, the new "Carrie" reveals some bizarre directorial decisions in what it ignores from the 1976 version. Admittedly, the scene with Tommy (William Katt) and his friends renting tuxedos (which is harshly remembered for the silly speeding-up in the middle) isn't very important apart from creating some comic relief, so I'm kind of glad that it's gone, but it did show that Tommy was just as happy to hang out with the nerdier kids as he was with the popular ones. The new rich kid, limo-hiring Tommy, played by Ansel Elgort, however, doesn't seem to have any friends!

In fact, the same could be said of all the kids in this movie. There's no rhyme or reason why any of them would want to know each other except for going to the same school. None of them are very friendly, and they don't behave like mid-teenagers normally would. They are so poorly differentiated that there's not one who you can care about either in a good way or a bad way; most only exist to fill space on the screen. Maybe it's because of the notable loss of lingering shots on the actors' expressions which makes the kids in this look like a bunch of console-gaming Aspies who don't have any contact with other people in the real world, or maybe it's bad acting, but there's no chemistry between them.

Let's also not forget the more "adult" stuff such as the opening shower and locker room introduction from the original with all that lovely nudity! That's gone due to a combination of Chloë Grace Moretz's age and what some might say is prudishness by a woman director. I'm not being misogynistic about it, it's a fact. Based on this director's grittier previous work, however, I suspect a lot of producer interference. You can clearly see for yourself how more "politically correct" hypocrisy is responsible for giving short-shrift to Chris Hargensen and Billy Nolan's memorably fiery relationship from the original "Carrie", and it's turned their new versions into two-dimensional bullies with no motivation for what they do to Carrie White other than being bullies for the sake of it.

Time of the month?

I'm not going to go into any great detail about the prom scenes and the ending because you'll go to see "Carrie" no matter what I say, and I've given you far too many spoilers without warning already. Suffice it to say that there's no heart involved in the scenes between Carrie and Tommy, and you won't feel Carrie's joy or see Tommy's temptation turn into wish-fulfilment. They don't even dance to a song with words which complement the moment! There's beauty and depth (and lots of flute music) in the original which you won't find here.

When the action kicks off, some of the stunts are rushed and others are too drawn out, but as the original "Carrie" is flawed with dated split-screen effects, the final third may seem cleaner overall. Because of test screenings, the much publicised additional scenes from Stephen King's novel were left out of the theatrical release. Hopefully, they'll be on the eventual DVD and Blu-ray, but they'll probably be as "Special Features" rather than a director's cut if they get included at all.

At the end of the day, this is a remake which replaces subtleties and characterisation with spectacle, so I'll concede to personal tastes about that. I didn't care for it—too many punches are pulled horror-wise to make it satisfying for me—but your mileage may vary.

Nice poster.

Amy (2013)

"With the psychic power of clairvoyance, an extra-sensory perception, Amy starts witnessing haunting visions as her entire Amish village begins to fall into demonic control."

Although "Amy" is typical of the low-budget awfulness which I usually tell people to avoid, the Amish setting is rather fascinating. There aren't many horror movies with the Amish in them that I can think of other than "Deadly Blessing" (1981), and apart from "Witness" (1985) and a couple of episodes of "Friday the 13th: The Series" involving a possessed quilt, the Amish haven't really been a source of entertainment for me at all. Consequently, as I don't know much about the Amish way of life except that they are a Christian sect who have chosen to separate themselves from the rest of the world (and have taken John 17:13-16 very literally), the novelty value sold this to me.

Having said that, I've been to Lancaster, Pennsylvania, where "Amy" was filmed and can tell you that the Amish people depicted in this movie are more like Mennonites. Mennonites are the ones who don't mind using a bit of electricity or modern tools to get their jobs done. They also run a lot of stores where they sell baked goods and some quite outstanding gummy worms, which is the only reason I've ever had any contact with them. Truth be told, as much as I admire their simple lifestyle, I find them all to be a bit creepy.

Playing up the creepy factor of their otherness, however, is not this movie's intention. Instead, the agenda is something which you will either find absolutely hilarious or very insulting depending on your point of view. I don't want to get ahead of myself and spoil the ending for you because the way it's delivered is supposed to be a surprise which is impossible to guess before it actually happens, but suffice it to say that there's only one infamous '80s slasher movie I know of where the villain has the same motivation. I'll leave a clue in the labels below this post.

"I see possessed people."

Because I misread the synopsis, I half-expected "Amy" to be a "Carrie" clone, but it isn't. It's a tale of demonic possessions in an Amish village which only one girl, Jessica DiGiovanni as Amy, has the power to see. She isn't believed even when people start dying, which strains her relationships with everyone around her, but then Christopher Atkins conveniently shows up as a magician/exorcist to help her save the day. That, give or take some cheap CGI effects, is as good as the story gets. Remember Christopher Atkins from "The Blue Lagoon" (1980) with Brooke Shields? Even if you do, you'll barely recognise him 33 years on. He's really aged, but unfortunately, his acting hasn't improved to go with it.

Despite "Amy" being a serious (but poorly made) horror movie, there's some amusement to be had around 40 minutes in when Christopher Atkins is speaking in his normal American accent and Amy exclaims, "You're English!" I know the real Amish are a bit cut off from us "fancy people", and some of them speak with a strange German accent, but that's just ridiculous in the context of this movie. Amy doesn't have any accent but an American one either, nor does she do any of the stereotypical Old English "thees" and "thous" which you might expect from religious folks. Thus, I don't know how and why that line was left in when Christopher Atkins clearly had no intention of ever trying to do an English accent. Maybe it's because Indian writer/director R.P. Patnaik (better known for Bollywood movies) was unable to tell the difference.

Blaming the rest of the movie's inadequacies on R.P. Patnaik's nationality and an imagined language barrier which may never have been a problem is the only way I can explain how a production with an alleged $2,000,000 budget turned out to be so horrible. I have no idea what really happened, but as that's twice the budget which The Asylum normally use, I'd guess that the real budget was a lot less. "Amy" looks like something you'd find buried in a Pendulum Pictures or Echo Bridge multipack, and with so many one-off actors and actresses in it, it's more like a $2,000 movie (plus whatever Christopher Atkins' fee for the day might be).

"God - He can't find us any better than Santa Claus."

Apart from Jessica DiGiovanni trying her hardest with a terrible script, everyone around her is either wooden or embarrassing to watch. I'd like to say that the older Amish women are the worst, but they're clearly amateurs and Christopher Atkins is not, so his performance wins a special booby prize for cringeworthiness. Runner-up is Kurt Mason Peterson as Amy's boyfriend Robert because he's so inconsistent. His prize is that he got to kiss and fondle Jessica DiGiovanni in the least erotic way possible during a scene on a bench which looks as if it lasts from morning until evening.

The passage of time is the biggest problem in "Amy". While I don't often tear a movie apart for breaking the Aristotlean rules about unity of time, there's no way I can overlook the mess that's been made here. I have no idea if the events are supposed to take place over a couple of days, a week, or a month. One very noticeable mistake is how Amy's visits to Chris' magic circle in the barn don't match up to the dusk and dawn rules which he explains to her either, but there are plenty more like that if you look for them.

On the plus side, the storytelling isn't too bad, and I'll give everyone credit for trying to make something a little bit different. As ever, it's the execution and production values which let things down, but "Amy" is still worth a rental if you have nothing else to watch.

The Monkey's Paw (2013)

"Jake is given a monkey's paw that grants three wishes. After the first two wishes leave his friend Cobb undead, Cobb pushes Jake to make a final wish."

Oh great! A generic re-imagining of W.W. Jacobs' classic short story—a more horrific re-imagining of "The Three Wishes" by the Brothers Grimm—which has very little to do with the original other than having a wish-granting monkey's paw in it. If you think you've seen it all before, you probably have, especially as the first movie version of "The Monkey's Paw" was made way back in 1915 and remade more than a dozen times since.

"The Monkey's Paw" has also been used as a theme so many times that it's hard to keep track of. Just off the top of my head, the "Wish You Were Here" segment from "Tales from the Crypt" (1972) is one of the more well known variants, "Deathdream" or "Dead of Night" (1972) puts a Vietnam war spin on things, and even "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" reworked the core of the story into an episode called "Forever". Thus, it's only logical that, sooner or later, someone else would realise that "The Monkey's Paw" contains a certain element which is very popular at the moment, and decided to make another bloody zombie movie out of it!

In fairness, the resurrection of an already decomposing corpse is the scariest part of W.W. Jacob's story, and Stephen King also ran amok with its idea of the dead coming back wrong for "Pet Sematary", but did something which you can read in under 10 minutes really have to be dragged out for another feature length movie?

With the first two wishes granted in less than 25 minutes, this Chiller Films version of "The Monkey's Paw" takes far too long to tell a story which could be wrapped up in 5 more. In fact, around 50 minutes in, Gillespie (Daniel Hugh Kelly), the previous owner of the paw, retells the original story as exposition in a lot less time than that!

"I wish I was still on Harper's Island."

Apart from a ton of padding (including a police investigation which only exists to give Charles S. Dutton from "Halloween H20" a cameo), the plot of "The Monkey's Paw" is mostly "Ugh, I'm a psycho-zombie, look at what you've done to me! Give me my wish or I'll kill everybody you know!" for over an hour, and it soon gets pretty boring. It's one cliché after another, and towards the end, it almost becomes another "Friday the 13th"-style slasher to make sure that the machete kills homage absolutely everything in the horror genre which director Brett Simmons has watched.

The cookie-cutter eyecandy provided by C.J. Thomason from "Harper's Island" (for the girls) and Michelle Pierce from "NCIS" (for the boys) does nothing to redress the balance after turning Stephen Lang (a real actor) into a soulless zombie, but I suppose that's Chiller for you. As usual, there's no nudity or swearing because Chiller are hypocrites and those things are far worse than showing violence. Oh, and they just had to set the story in New Orleans because everybody (including "American Horror Story") is trying to make Louisiana the cool place to be creepy again this year.

While the acting is okay, and the gore effects aren't bad for a sanitised TV movie, there's no "oomph" to this: There are no scares and no chance whatsoever of a memorable punchline. Well, not when you already know exactly what that punchline will be anyway. Watch the 1948 version instead.

Paranormal Asylum: The Revenge of Typhoid Mary (2013)

"Mary Malone (aka Typhoid Mary) was committed to a NY insane asylum to live in solitary after being blamed for spreading Typhoid Fever in the early 20th Century. After decades in isolation she died alone on North Brother Island. Now, nearly 100 years later, two best friends and aspiring filmmakers are setting out to find out what really happened. What starts as a simple investigation turns into a battle for survival, as they discover Mary may be dead, but she's certainly not gone."

If you've been wandering around Walmart recently, you've probably seen this DVD a few times and wondered if it's worth watching. That coverart looks spooky, doesn't it? I bet you think it'll be shit-yer-pants scary! But let's cut straight through the chase here, it's not!

"Paranormal Asylum" is also nothing to do with the "Paranormal Activity" movies or even The Asylum's "Paranormal Entity", but you have to give the filmmakers credit for deliberately creating a confusingly named product which someone is going to buy by accident eventually. The thing is, the plot is nothing like any of those movies unless being a clone of "Grave Encounters" or its sequel counts in any way. Unfortunately, I haven't watched more than 5 minutes of either (except on fast-forward), so I can't say for sure. The word on the street, however, is that "Paranormal Asylum" is an even lower-budget knock off of that already low-budget crap, and I have no reason to doubt it.

Judged on its own merits, "Paranormal Asylum" is absolutely bloody terrible. The story barely makes sense, and the camerawork is so godawful that it's tiresome to watch. It's as if whoever filmed it has no idea how cameras work, how to frame anything, or how to position themselves for the best view. Couple that with the editing which cuts too quickly between shots, and it often becomes nauseating to boot. While I can accept that some of the earlier footage is supposed to look amateur due to small cameras being set up everywhere, in scenes where it's not supposed to be obvious that anyone is holding a camera (and close-ups take over which swing back and forth or whirl around characters), it's actually worse!

Like most low-budget horror movies, the acting is okay in some places and non-existent in others. It's so varied this time though, it makes me wonder if there was ever a complete script involved or if scenes were made up as they went along. Apart from a load of exposition, the rest of the dialogue sounds like it belongs in the cut scenes of a computer game or some crappy Japanese cartoon. Maybe it's just because Nathan Spiteri (who plays Andy) has that kind of voice and delivery, but it's more likely to be because everything is so disjointed and hastily thrown together.

Tying up your possessed fiancée and confining her to bed always ends well.

A somewhat hilarious scene (which isn't meant to be) is when Michelle (Laura Gilreath) gets possessed by the spirit of Typhoid Mary and turns into a flickering escapee from one of those bad '80s computer game movies. Watching her teleport between steps all the way to her car amused me for all the wrong reasons, and I couldn't take anything seriously after that. It's a shame because Laura Gilreath is uber hot and tends to perk things up considerably otherwise. There's no nudity, but at least she strips down to her bra and knickers eventually.

The other main character, Mark (Aaron Mathias), who has the best (albeit far too brief) supernatural encounters, does slightly better overall, despite taking approximately 47 minutes to realise that he's been seeing ghosts! Aaron Mathias seems to be a likeable chap with the right kind of borderline leading man looks to stand out although he doesn't do anything very memorable here. I suppose he does "scared" well enough, but he's the only one who is likely to be affected by any of the jump scares.

Outside of the threesome, minor characters randomly come and go with no rhyme or reason behind their appearances other than how Andy sets up appointments with them for Mark. How Andy knows any of these people remains a mystery within another mystery, especially as the ability to tell a story is not this movie's strong point.

I'm not going to spoil the ending for you because it's as stupid as everything else. Although it ties this mess together in the best way it can, it's completely out of left field and really not worth suffering through the rest of the movie to get to.

The artwork is the best part!

In that case, I'd hate to see a paranormal film that gets it wrong!

And some movies are better off not being made.

Don't confuse it with this:

For the love of God, make this cloning stop!

It's just as bad though.

Hallows' Eve (2013)

"Years after a tragic accident leaves a young child scarred for life, the people responsible pay - with their lives."

When I saw that Danielle Harris had top billing, and then noticed the huge similarity between the little girl (Isobel Rose Costello) who gets run over by a tractor in the opening scene and Danielle Harris at the same age, I expected something a lot different than the horrible mess that "Hallows' Eve" turned out to be. It may sound too predictable, but I honestly thought that Danielle Harris would be all disfigured like she was in Rob Zombie's "Halloween II" and be revealed as the psycho killing the now grown-up bullies in revenge for her face.

Maybe that's one of the red herrings which is designed to sell the mystery element of this feeble attempt at a slasher movie, and I've probably already spoiled the ending for you by telling you that it isn't how things play out, but I don't care. "Hallows' Eve" is so bad that it doesn't deserve to be watched by anyone, and is certainly not worth renting or buying. Unless you've recently become the recipient of a brain transplant operation involving a drunken chimpanzee, the lack of a cohesive story is excrutiating to get through. Even my cats who have brains the size of walnuts couldn't cope with this and left me to it.

There are too many characters to keep track of, and as usual, there's not one of the "teenagers" who isn't such a nasty piece of work that you don't just want him or her to die horribly, but the story jumps all over the place and is completely unsatisfying. Lots of boobs and blood, and an incongruous dream sequence half-way through which adds more gratuitous nudity, is nice but doesn't help matters. It's almost impossible to follow what's going on until the very end, and by that point, you'll be unlikely to care.

Don't worry, babe, you can still get a job in indie horror movies.

Among the cheap gore effects, uncreative kills, and bad camerawork lurk several horror c-listers including Ashley C. Williams and Tiffany Shepis, plus a bunch of male "actors" who are harder to recognise. Apparently, one of them was in "Pumpkinhead" (1988), but the rest vary from being hangers-on in the "indie scene" to fully-fledged TV actors who have some actual talent. Who's who or and who plays who, I couldn't possibly tell you even with the cast list in front of me. They all have generic character names like Nick, Todd, Dave, Brad, and whatever the female equivalents might be. I may be wrong about this because I was bored out of my mind, but I don't think that any of them call each other by name other than the disfigured girl being Eve.

How and why known genre actors get involved in half-arsed projects like this which can do them no good is the biggest mystery. There may be a very small financial reward, but no big-wig is going to look at their work in "Hallows' Eve" and think, "Oh, I really must hire that one for my next muti-million dollar blockbuster!" In fact, it's more likely to be the opposite. Movies like this kill careers, they don't make them! The only excuse anyone can use is that you could put Oscar award-winning actors in this low-budget trash and they would still come away from it reeking of shit because of the script. Having said that, Tiffany Shepis gets the best of the bad lines, and Danielle Harris doesn't have enough screen time to disgrace herself.

The only good thing I can say about "Hallows' Eve" is that setting it in one of the "Haunted Attractions" which a lot of farmers tend to set up every year in America is an original touch. I've been to a few of these Hallowe'en events, so the location felt real to me, and I liked it. Sadly, that's all I enjoyed about this movie other than what you can see in the image below and the bath scene which preceded it.

Definitely a long-leggedy beastie!

Three more weeks to Hallowe'en, Hallowe'en, Hallowe'en. Three more weeks to Hallowe'en. This film sucks ass.

The Dirties (2013)

"Two best friends are filming a comedy about getting revenge on the bullies at their high school. One of them isn't joking."

If you're expecting "The Dirties" to be another "Rampage" (2009), think again. "The Dirties" is amateur handycam crap of the highest order with semi-decent acting wasted on an unoriginal plot which ultimately peters out and stops dead just as the excitement begins. It's all talk, very little action, and mostly unconvincing characters.

Apart from the location, "The Dirties" is far too similar to Samuel N. Benavides's "None Left Standing" (2005) for those of us who know our low-budget movies. Although "The Dirties" isn't a blatant rip-off and doesn't focus on a descent into madness as well, it's certainly in the same vein. Both are about a trio of students making a film with one of them being dangerously obsessive.

The difference, of course, is that "The Dirties" uses a no-budget student film within another no-budget student film as its novelty "meta" contrivance. The levels of metafiction reach their peak with Matthew Johnson not only acting as himself but also being the director and writer of this disappointing drivel. He doesn't do a bad job for a jack-of-all-trades (and master of none), but I would love to see Canadian filmmakers come up with something more original rather than lazily reworking American movie tropes to death.

Because of its borrowings, I'm not sure if "The Dirties" is supposed to be "found footage" of some kind or if it's meant to be a bizarrely filmed "fly on the wall" drama. Either way, it failed for me aesthetically and stylistically. The unseen cameraman (who I think is called "Ed" at one point) brings up too many questions about who is filming what and why, and it threw me out of the movie several times.

As far as stories about high schools and bullies go, "The Dirties" is full of the usual clichés; jocks versus nerds and all that bullshit which, as a Brit, I never encountered and can't identify with no matter how many times the same stereotypes are forced on me. There's nothing that any of the kids do in this movie that a good old-fashioned punch in the mouth wouldn't have solved if only the emasculated characters stood up for themselves. I know this is Canadian, but Americans and Brits are usually so mouthy about expressing everything that I can't even get my head around the internalisation which leads to isolation, self-destruction, or murder. In Canada, where the myth is that everybody is nicer and less selfish, the frustration caused by repression is maybe less puzzling.

Prior to watching "The Dirties", I came across an interesting documentary called "Bullied to Death: The Tragedy of Phoebe Prince" (2010) which covers the subject of American high school bullying and its psychological effects a lot better. But, as someone whose only experience of attempted bullying has been as a "victim" of the online geek-cliques of hypocrital prudes, their whiteknights, and "flaggots" who I laugh at for being so childish, I still don't quite understand how such things are allowed to escalate. Maybe kids need to find better ways to deal with their frustrations like going outside once in a while, helping someone less fortunate, or stroking a cat.

Teenagers are nasty buggers anyway, and every modern movie and documentary which shows the younger generation and their infantilised parents is an argument to bring back corporal (and capital) punishment. In my day, a few hard whacks with a cane would've sorted everything out. But enough of me on my soapbox. Suffice it to say that the predictably violent but very brief (and punch-pulling) ending of "The Dirties" is the culmination of what happens when you spare the rod and spoil the child.

"The Dirties" isn't a movie recreating Columbine or any of the other famous school shootings, nor is it meant to be, but what it's trying to say as a drama about teenage relationships, loneliness, and a kid who can't tell fiction from reality anymore doesn't work either. It's all too tame, and even an old British kids' TV show like "Grange Hill" dealt with the topics in a more controversial and satisfying way over 30 years ago.

If you're looking for something gritty, I recommend skipping this one.

Dark Touch (2013)

"In a remote town in Ireland, eleven-year-old Neve [sic] finds herself the sole survivor of a bloody massacre that killed her parents and younger brother. Suspecting a gang of homicidal vandals, the police ignore Neve's [sic] explanation that the house is the culprit."

If you're silly enough to read any other horror blog except mine, you'll probably see a lot of people praising how cerebral "Dark Touch' is and how it's meant to have a big message about the trauma caused by child abuse or some such unhappy horseshit at the heart of it. What a load of crap! I wanted it to be a ghost story, especially as the official IFC Films synopsis suggests a haunted house, so let the hate commence!

For those of us who can see through the fluff and arty-farty edits, "Dark Touch" is nothing more than a slow-paced clone of Stephen King's "Carrie" and "Firestarter", but it's set in the Irish countryside to make it look better. Give or take a few more disturbed children, it's kind of like how "Wake Wood" (2011) was a rip-off of "Pet Sematary" (1989) in a similar location, and it sucks just as much.

Nice cinematography using every method of filming from handheld camerawork to tripod-mounted long shots doesn't make up for the story being boring as buggery apart from two lush moments of goriness. Once you've seen them, it's not worth waiting for more unless clichés such as exploding windows, treading in broken glass with bare feet, or laconic little girls with Asperger's Syndrome float your boat. Even if they do, the cheap CGI fire effects will probably sink it.

Among the lameness, adults being pinned to walls by kitchen tables or chests of drawers against their thighs is a recurring theme in this movie which has very little to do with anything other than being another cheap and easy effect. I think it happens three or four times, but it may be more. What the significance of these repetitive scenes is, I have no idea. It can join the list of questions I have such as why does the hotter-looking mother suffer from bouts of tinnitus every time little Niamh throws a tantrum? And what kind of dyslexia causes the name Niamh to be pronounced "Neeve"?

"I'm a firestarter, twisted firestarter."

As Irish horror movies go, "Dark Touch" isn't the worst I've ever seen, but it's not even close to being up to the same high standard as "Dorothy Mills" (2008). The creepy atmosphere promises more than it delivers, and the eclectic mixture of regional Irish accents (which range from mild to harsh and unintelligible) cause it to be only a donkey or two short of another "Rawhead Rex" (1986). Having said that, I do quite like "Rawhead Rex" in spite of Clive Barker disowning it, and I'm not even sure if it has any donkeys in it anyway. If it didn't, it should have done. But I've digressed.

The acting in "Dark Touch" is fine given that character development is almost non-existent, and Swedish import Charlotte Flyvholm has a filler part as a heavily pregnant school counsellor to justify the Swedish financial investment. Out of all the characters, she stood out most for me by being the third pregnant blonde that I've seen in a movie this week, the other two being Detective Inspector Sarah Clayton (Joanne Froggatt) in "uwantme2killhim?" and Barb's mother also called Sarah (played by Chantal Quesnelle) in "Curse of Chucky".

Since there's unlikely to be a theatrical release of "Dark Touch" near you, it's available for half the price of a cinema ticket through the various VOD services. At $6.99, I think it's still way too much for a pre-pubuscent "Carrie" clone, and you'd be better off saving your money for the official "Carrie" remake in a few weeks.

Fright Night 2: New Blood (2013)

"By day Gerri Dandridge is a sexy professor, but by night she transforms into a real-life vampire with an unquenchable thirst for human blood. So when a group of high school students travel abroad to study in Romania, they find themselves ensnared in her chilling web of lust and terror."

Er... this new "Fright Night 2" isn't a sequel, it's another remake! Should I call it a "requel" or a "semake"? Naw, I'll just call it "another piece of straight-to-DVD crap" because that's exactly what it is.

Directed by Eduardo Rodriguez who made "Curandero" (2005), and starring a load of Brits and Romanians who nobody has heard of before, this sequel in name only isn't that bad in places, but it's still not very good overall. It's better than the the 2011 remake (which I refuse to review) and the real "Fright Night Part 2" (1988), but it's a lot less entertaining than the first "Fright Night" (1985). Having said that, I'm not a big fan of that movie either.

The new Gerri Dandridge is played by Jamie Murray, aka the hot chick from "Devil's Playground" (2010) and "Botched" (2007), but I didn't recognise her until I looked up the cast list. It's been far too long since I reviewed her previous movies, and she hasn't cropped up in anything else that I've seen until now.

The benefit of keeping a blog, of course, is being able to look up such details and make myself look like an idiot, but in my defence, even someone with an enormous brain like mine can't be expected to remember absolutely everything about the thousands of movies which have come and gone in the last three years. "Dexter" and "Warehouse 13" fans on the IMDb seem to know all about Jamie Murray for some reason, but I've never watched an episode of either TV series in my life and have no intention of doing so. She's an acceptable vampiress in "Fright Night 2", but it's due to her model looks and Kelly LeBrock accent rather than her acting.

Nice teeth!

The second major difference is that this "Fright Night 2" is full of boobs. Not just one or two boobs, but lots and lots of boobs! Combine them with some lesbian canoodling, a visit to a stripclub, bathfuls (or indoor swimming pools) of blood, and an animated comic strip, and it's got everything today's teenagers could want, right? Who cares that you've got Brits with fake American accents (that are probably looped), a load of crappy CGI, nobody you could give a damn about, and a completely unoriginal story? None of that matters. The morons will see the title on the DVD and rent or buy it anyway, won't they? That's what 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment are hoping will happen.

In its favour, "Fright Night 2: New Blood" at least attempts to put a new spin on things by taking everything to Romania. Why? Probably because it's traditional to set vampire movies in Romania, and it's a lot cheaper to film there! It also brings Countess Elizabeth Báthory into the story and gives her bat-like sonar, which I don't think I've ever seen in a vampire movie before. I mean, obviously I've seen "Countess Dracula" (1971) and other movies with that character in, but the sonar thing is a novelty.

Far less entertaining is the new Peter Vincent, played by Sean Power, who is now a "monster hunter" in some bogus reality TV show rather than a horror host or even a magician. Mercifully, he doesn't have much time on screen. In comparison, David Tennant wasn't that bad. Okay, he was still awful, but he just wasn't as bad as this drunken oaf. Sean Power (who has a great name, by the way) is only in this movie for the sake of having a Peter Vincent of some kind, and doesn't do anything important one way or another. He doesn't even kill Evil Ed!

British nerds playing American nerds.

It's not really worth mentioning the new Evil Ed except to say that the kid behaves like such a dick that I'm surprised Stephen Geoffreys' bat-sonar (i.e. gaydar) wasn't buzzing! He almost makes the new Charley Brewster look mature! Charley Brewster is still a horrible character though and his girlfriend Amy isn't any better. I couldn't care less what the names of the actors are who played them as I don't expect they'll be in anything else but British soap operas which I'll never see.

As much as I can usually find something of merit in any vampire movie, I had quite a struggle with this one. It's another sign of how creatively dead the American horror industry has become. "Fright Night 2: New Blood" is simply a pointless and unnecessary third remake disguised as a sequel to a remake which nobody wanted. Sadly, I expect there'll be a fourth one eventually too.

Insidious: Chapter 2 (2013)

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Atrocious (2010)

"Two teenage siblings endure a terrifying experience while investigating a rural legend near their family's vacation home."

Thank God for "Bloody Disgusting Selects", not because the horror movies they've chosen are any good but because it's easy to write them off with a tirade of abuse.

"Atrocious" is yet another faux found footage movie in much the same vein as "The Blair Witch Project", and we all know how little I think of that piece of shit. Other than being Spanish, the only real difference is that the kids are younger, and that, in and of itself, is a big clue to the intended target audience.

After an exceedingly boring first-half with nothing but a dead dog to show for it, it all becomes a series of poorly filmed night vision scenes of lots of bushes and trees! Give or take some annoying screaming and shouting, it's just like watching a typical episode of "Ghost Hunters" which doesn't have any ghosts in it either.

With nauseating camerawork and no scares, "Atrocious" certainly lives up to its name and is going straight into the dungeon. I don't have time to watch any more shakycam crap like this, and I didn't have the patience to make it all the way through this one.

Supposedly, it has some kind of non-supernatural twist at the end.

Aptly named.